Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday September 17, 2010 @03:40PM
from the ed-harris-can-probably-help-you-out dept.

frank249 writes "In January, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Trieste descent, the X Prize Foundation announced a $10 million prize for the first privately funded craft to make two manned descents to the bottom of Challenger Deep, the deepest surveyed point in the oceans. Now, James Cameron has announced he has commissioned a submarine capable of surviving the tremendous pressures at a depth of seven miles, from which he will not only try for the X prize but also shoot 3D footage that may be incorporated in Avatar's sequel."

Don't worry. The descent is a risky venture. There's a very good chance the submarine will fail at depth, costing Cameron his life and the world the opportunity to see a sequel.

Not that I personally wish Cameron any harm, of course.

Ideally, the submarine will fail at a very survivable depth on the way down (or on the way back up, but in such a way that the footage is destroyed), he'll resurface unharmed, and he'll take that as a sign from [insert_deity_or_external_force_here] that Avatar, like Terminator

Nah, I've got to disagree with you there. IMHO, I'd much rather watch a lower-budget movie with a really good plot (Terminator) than a weak plot with high-budget special effects (T2). Don't get me wrong; the original had it's flaws* but it's by far my favorite.

If you had said Aliens2 rather than T2, I'd have to agree with you.

*The dialog was often a little forced, and I would have like Linda Hamilton to have been a bit stronger of a character -- although not quite the caricature she became in T2.

The Alien series is harder because none of the films was a similar format, so it's hard to compare. Aliens was a great space-marine action film, but Alien had more atmosphere. 3 and 4, again, were very different - 4 was a shiny special effects modern SciFi film, which people hated largely because it was so different from the others in the series. 3 was... well, 3 was terrible, but the early script drafts were interesting.

"...a lower-budget movie with a really good plot (Terminator) than a weak plot with high-budget special effects (T2)."

Yeah, I much preferred the original's plot about a killer robot sent back in time to kill the mother of mankind's savior. T2's plot of a killer robot sent back in time to kill mankind's savior was weak...

Terminator 2 was the HORRIBLE one, from a science fiction point of view. It was filled with time travel nonsense that led to either an infinite universe theory, or an infinitely changeable universe theory -- either of which leaves the viewer with an unsatisfying conclusion (hello Star Trek: Voyager). "No fate but what we make" -- or that you can travel back in time to change it, while somehow retaining the memories of the now-extinct timeline -- implies that the entire plot could be undone by some other s

The TV Series: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, expands on what you see as flaws in the time travel plotting. It's quite interesting when two people who know each other from the future have both come back and meet and although initially everything is fine, they realise at some point that each is not who they think the other is - they remember some important events differently, revealing that the one that came back first did change the future and the one that came back second is from that altered future, but the

You do realize that they can do quite a bit of testing on the surface, right? For the amount of money involved here, it would surprise me if they didn't have some means of testing it prior to launch without endangering anybody's life.

Terminator had a sequel, and a good one. Not sure why you think that Avatar shouldn't have one. There is potential there, much as there was in Star Wars after "A New Hope". And so far, Cameron seems to be able to actually tell a decent story, completely unlike Lucas.

I posit a different solution. He gets all the way down and instead of seeing friendly glow-in-the-dark alien jellyfish things, he comes face-to-tentacle with loathly lord Cthulhu. Then he spends the rest of his life screaming and rocking back and forth on top of a mountain. Until the Fungi from Yuggoth get him. Best result all round, really.

How the hell do you come up with Alien and Terminator when trying to list movies that shouldn't have sequels? The list of good examples is endless, and you manage to pick on two of the best Sci Fi sequels of all time. Yea, after the 2nd, they all sucked, but Aliens and Terminator 2 are undeniable classics.

Umm. That's the point. Aliens and Terminator 2 were both directed by Cameron. The later sequels were not (and sucked).

Don't worry, it'll give you sci-fi snobs another movie to look down your nose at. Of course, while you're standing in line to watch it for the 3rd time, buying the Blu-Ray disk, updating your home theater system to get the most out of the experience, and looking for places on the internet to tell other snobs how much you hated it.

I thought it was a good movie with a story told very well. The 3D added a lot, but I believe it would have been a good movie even without it. Since the hype was over the 3D, it tended to make people disregard the rest of the movie. Yes, the plot is not original, but you can say that about 95% of (Hollywood) movies today. Cameron took a storyline (Pocahontas) and used it as a basis for a futuristic action movie.

I lost my left eye in a mugging. 3d does nothing for me, so that's no plus. And I already got dragged to see Dances with Wolves, do I really need to see the remake just because it has awesome graphics and special effects? I don't go to movies for awesome graphics and special effects. I understand that many people do enjoy pretty pictures, but when I want pretty pictures I go to an art gallery.

I'm honestly not trying to be a condescending snob and claim my tastes are more refined than other people's. And I'm

When I want pretty pictures I go a cliff side and view the petroglyphs and then I blow it up so no one else can appreciate it like I did. Out snob that. I'm not trying to be a snob, I just don't want to be left out of all the snobbery.

Fair enough, although having seen both, I don't think equating Dances with Wolves vs. Avatar makes a lot of sense. The plots are fairly similar, but so what? Rocky and Raging Bull could both be called boxing movies, does that make them similar? Compared to Dancing with Wolves, Avatar had a lot more fantasy and action, including plenty of Tom-Clancy-style technology fetishism (even though you were lead to root against the machines - but whoever designed and animated that machinery was clearly into it (and

People seem to forget that most historical art was commissioned, not born from some great artistic vision.People who can only enjoy beauty in "high culture", don't enjoy beauty at all; they enjoy being part of the "high culture" crowd.

Sorry, buddy, but I have not seen James Cameraschlock's Space Smurf Pocahantas and I never will. There are plenty of us who actually, really and truly do not like crap Science Fiction, will not see it, will not buy the Blue-Ray and won't mention it until some idiot tries to defend it or imply that, actually, I really really like it but I'm too much of a snob to admit it.

Um, not to disagree or anything, but how do you know it's crap if you haven't bothered to watch it?

I read reviews, what do you think? Unless the reviewers I read suddenly started lying through their teeth, it's the most puerile tripe I've ever read about. Why would I watch shit like that? I mean, was this the first James Cameron film you've been too? Did you not know what a crap director he is? You were never forced to see Titanic by a girlfriend?

You have to be pretty damn selective to find a group of critics who didn't like Avatar... which I have no doubt you are. I'm sure you're attracted to like-minded critics. That's understandable, but realize that it is a flaw when you come to believe that's representative of actual critical acclaim. It's like reading nothing but Daily Kos, and thinking that's normal and representative political discussion.

I wouldn't say that he's a crap director, just that he's not very ambitious. You aren't going to get any surprises from his movies, you see the trailer and you know what to expect.

But he does deliver on what you're expecting. From Avatar I expected pretty CGI, the noble primitive blue people to triumph over the greedy technologically advanced humans, and thats exactly what happened. Its not challenging, but it was well executed for what it was trying to do. Yeah it wasn't trying to do very much. But it didn't fail.

Hating on James Cameron movies is snobbery. No one's telling you its going to be Citizen Kane. Its entertainment, don't read too much into it. Complaining about a James Cameron movie being shallow and predictable is like complaining about poor acting in a porno. Is it really that important that you believe that the wife has an inattentive husband and the man is really a pizza delivery guy? Is it that important that the plot be original when the audience is there to see pretty 3-D animation?

Wrong, sounds like a kid who won't eat mac and cheese, but rather, wants a nicoise salad, a fillet mignon, and some truffle stuffed lobster. Except that I actually like mac and cheese, too, I just don't call it haute cuisine or the best food ever cooked by anyone, anywhere, for ever and ever amen. I mean, some people actually cried over how awesome the movie was, how pathetic is that?

trashing the career of one of the most successful directors in hollywood

(rolls eyes)

frankly, your post is nothing more than jealousy. you stand on a soap box of imagined authority to pass judgment on the man based on nothing but empty spite

you're just sour grapes. maybe it makes you feel better about your own failure to trash successful people, but the idea of losers pulling down others to their level is a social phenomenon as old as loser teenagers being angry at their peers who try to better themselves

because while i was editting it, i watched it, and it sucked. no one else saw it except me. i am my own worst critic. maybe if i let other people watch it, they might say its not all that bad. but i'm not ready for that. someday. maybe you can be the first to see it. i'm sure you will give it the care and fair appraisal you are obviously so full of (rolls eyes)

i am not bitter about the experience. i tried to make a movie. it didn't go very well. oh well. all you can ask out of life is to try: it is better t

I am glad to hear that you do not care to watch the movie. I myself have watched it and enjoyed it immensely, but always, at the back of my mind, there was a nagging thought: "What does uid 1352 think about the movie?" I have been wondering about it for many a month with no answer in sight. Now, thankfully, my mind can rest. Not only do you not care to see the movie at all, but you are kind enough to share your thoughts about the movie, although you have not seen it, with all of us at Slashdot.Actually, in

I don't have to see it. All the reviews I read, from reviewer's whose opinion's I trust, said it was a crappy film. As if "Directed by James Cameron" wasn't enough of a clue. Seriously, are you actually denying it is Pocahantas in space? Cameron makes focus group tested, mass produced schlock designed for the "mass market," i.e. your average idiot with no taste.

As I wrote in another post, most of today's films have a plot that can be traced back to other films/stories/myths/legends. Does that make them all necessarily bad? I think not. Most of them are, but some are pretty good, although you can figure out the basic gist of the plot after 10 minutes. Sometimes it is the way things are told, rather than only what is told, that makes the difference.As an a example, think about cover versions of songs. Most are a waste of pressure waves, but some (e.g. Nothing compar

I don't need to see trash to know that it sucks, I can smell that shit. Please, are you really claiming anything Cameron has done is art? You know, I sometimes enjoy bad things, too. I occasionally eat at McDonalds, for instance. But I don't go around telling people it's a fucking fillet mignon.

Of course it is. Opinions may differ on whether it's GOOD art, but of course it's art. There isn't a threshold of quality that determines whether something is art. "Twilight" is art, just crappy art. So are my son's crayon drawings.

It's my understanding that a sequel was planned before the first was even released. Whether it would be produced was dependent on the success of Avatar. And I have to admit I'm looking forward to it. As goofy and simplistic as the plot was I found Avatar to be very entertaining, and normally it's quite difficult for me to get past a weak plot.

I was pondering the same thing... What part of Avatar was under water? Can those crazy blue alien people now ride 7-mile-deep diving creatures of some sort, for what is presumably a spiritual journey of self-accomplishment and occasional calamity?

To clarify: I find it a bit sad that humanity just isn't capable of building on pre-existing accomplishments, solutions and ideas. The Trieste [wikipedia.org] has already achieved this goal 50 years ago, as the summary states, so why would this be such a difficult challenge? We had the technology half a century ago, and it worked perfectly well.

Sort of like the Apollo program - almost half a century after, we are not capable to go to the moon - we simply and stupidly "forgot" how to do it. The great designers and engineers left and/or died off, and we, as humankind, went on with out collective dicks in our collective hands.

The reason nobody's done those things again is that with advances in robotic technology, the only reason to send people to either the moon or the Challenger Deep is for a photo op. Both have already been done, and "me too" snapshots just aren't nearly as compelling.

The reason nobody's done those things again is that with advances in robotic technology, the only reason to send people to either the moon or the Challenger Deep is for a photo op. Both have already been done, and "me too" snapshots just aren't nearly as compelling.

And how are we going to colonize other planets, such as Mars, if we don't colonize the Moon, first? How are we going to build a permanent base on Mars if we don't do it on the Moon, first?

The Moon itself may or may not be scientifically interesting, but it's a great staging and study ground for subsequent missions. If we don't know how to get our asses to the Moon, sure as hell we won't be able to get them to other planets or asteroids.

And robotic missions? Really? How is that 40 minutes signal roundtrip t

And how are we going to colonize other planets, such as Mars, if we don't colonize the Moon, first?

We don't. There is absolutely no reason to colonize Mars. The planet has nothing of value on it beyond science info, which can be collected with machines.

Maybe it's worth sending humans on an Apollo-style mission to plant a flag, snap photos, and pick up bragging rights, but that's about it.

A robotic probe on Mars will do in 10 years about as much work as one man or woman would do in one day

That's BS. First of all, people would be spending 99% of their time and effort trying to keep their own meatbag asses alive. Moreover, probes, (or better still, entire robotic science bases), can patiently do their work

On the other hand, it got them there, but didn't do a whole lot of good. From Wikipedia:

"The descent took almost five hours and the two men spent barely twenty minutes on the ocean floor before undertaking the three-hour-and-fifteen-minute ascent. Their early departure from the ocean floor was due to their concern over a crack in the window caused by the intense pressure of their descent, and also because their landing on the sea bed had stirred up a cloud of silt which reduced visibility to zero and showed no sign of settling."
So hopefully the new technology will give us a longer, more interesting time at the bottom...

We didn't forget how to go to the moon, we stopped investing the resources in maintaining the capability. The moon was a great accomplishment in terms of jump starting the space program, but there wasn't really a whole lot of quality science coming out of it. Not like today, the science being done in orbit is much, much better than what we were doing back then.

We could get back to the moon pretty quickly if we wanted to, it's mostly a matter of do we really want to spend the resources to do it? We also h

Actually the Trieste was not very maneuverable. Hopefully this new sub will actually maneuver and poke around a bit. The Trieste to put in space terms was Viking or maybe Apollo 11.This new on will be Spirt or Apollo 17 if you like

And the US could go to the moon again if we had the will. Russia could also probably do it. The EU could but it would take them a bit longer since there experience with Man rated craft is limited.China or India could do it in between 10 and 15 years.

To clarify: I find it a bit sad that humanity just isn't capable of building on pre-existing accomplishments, solutions and ideas. The Trieste [wikipedia.org] has already achieved this goal 50 years ago, as the summary states, so why would this be such a difficult challenge? We had the technology half a century ago, and it worked perfectly well.

Sure. And take aeronautics. Clearly we should have stopped in the 1800s with functional gliders. Or maybe the early 1900s with powered flight. I mean... surely the Wright Brothers should have just put away their wind tunnels and called it a day before doing all this testing. By the mid-1900's it was just getting silly. The 1940's saw jet engines - as if that wasn't just coat-tail riding in it's fullest. And as if this hasn't all Been Done by world Governments, private commercial aviation has to get in to the mix. What the heck were these guys thinking?

Sort of like the Apollo program - almost half a century after, we are not capable to go to the moon - we simply and stupidly "forgot" how to do it. The great designers and engineers left and/or died off, and we, as humankind, went on with out collective dicks in our collective hands.

Yeah - I'm sure it's all about lost knowledge and nothing about the resources it took to accomplish these things. It's not like going to the moon is involved or anything. On a more serious note - you should go download yourself a copy of the CAIB Report and look in to the chapter that talks about funding; specifically comparing the Apollo era to today.

NASA is a train wreck at the moment. The shuttle retires this year and there is nothing to replace it. NASA has no clear plans, no guidance, and no funding. It'll be at least seven years before NASA will have a craft capable of even getting a person off this rock, let alone going to the Moon.

If we wanted to build a Saturn V rocket today it could not be done. The original design is gone.

GOD DAMN IT. I really, really wish people would quit perpetuating this wildly incorrect urban legend. The original design details, down to the very last nut and bolt, are on file at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Absolutely nothing at all is "gone". Source. [space.com]

The experts that had been working with rocket engines since the late 1940s worked on the Saturn V. Today there is nobody that knows anywhere near as much about rocket engines left. While the main engines for the Shuttle are somewhat of a marvel, I doubt they could be reproduced today either. The people resources simply aren't there - it would take 10 years of experimentation and learning about rockets.

Also ridiculously incorrect. You truly don't believe that the Space Shuttle Main Engines could be "reproduced" today? You're completely unaware of the fact that they've been continually "reproduced" since the beginning of the program, right? That they're rebuilt between missions, and that the design has improved and evolved over the life of the program? That as of right now there are in fact nine fully-built spare ones in storage at KSC? The engineers didn't just build a bunch of them in 1980 and then zap themselves with the Men In Black flashy-thing--SSMEs have been constantly built for the past almost thirty years. If my tone is coming across as a little coarse, it's because I'm having a hard time understanding how you could have a highly-moderated post to Slashdot when thirty seconds of research would refute almost everything you just said.

The reason why building a Saturn V today from the old plans is impossible has nothing to do with "cheaper labor" or "people that didn't mind getting their hands dirty" or whatever stupidness you wrote. Rather, you can't build a Saturn V today because a Saturn V isn't just a bunch of tanks with engines strapped to it--it's half of a complex launch system, with the other half being the Apollo CSM that sits on top of it. A Saturn V is an end-to-end system designed around the IBM-produced instrumentation unit [wikimedia.org], two tons of analog and basic digital computers and instrumentation. It's not that you can't build it--it's that building it wouldn't make any sense. You'd need to completely de-Apollo the rocket for it to work right, and guess what? That's exactly what NASA has been doing [wikimedia.org], although the political will to make it happen is sorely lacking.

Please educate yourself before you spout off such a mixture of urban legend and outright incorrect craziness.

I think that it would be better to film for a sequel to Das Boot. We could watch the nervous faces of the crew look around as the metal hull of the submarine makes sickening groans under the increasing pressure. Every so often, a pipe would spring a leak and a burly guy in a tank top would have to tighten it with a huge monkey wrench. Then more guys would have to use sledge hammers jam wooden timbers into bulging bulkheads. Finally there would be life-and-death drama when the ballast fails to release at the bottom of the trench. That would make for a riveting thriller.

i have to say, yeah, this is a spectacular piece of news for cameron and a great promo for his next film. "i want to shoot for the stars" is a great thrill, but the fact of the matter is, a submarine capable of withstanding 8TPI of seawater pressure is not the same as say, commissioning a rolls royce with a custom paint job. That is, just because you say it needs to happen, and you might throw "lots" of money at it, does not mean it will even get off the drawing board. The Soviet military once built a submarine called Komsomolets capable of a 1000 meter dive, but thats still roughly 8000 meters short of the target depth our television director wants.

i mean shape memory alloy turned into a villain in t2? or superconducting islands of rock in the air? the man is a true science geek in the vein of anyone else writing here on slashdot

so if anyone is going to get this thing built, with the money cameron has, he's going to do it, because he most certainly understands all of the objections you raised in your post. he is also diving fanatic, he got cameras to the titanic site, his technical and science acumen is outstanding

Well, the Trieste did it, so there's at least one workable design already. And Steve Fossett had already commissioned a submarine that was designed, built and ready to begin sea trials. It was designed using kevlar and carbon fiber, rather than the five inch thick steel sphere of the Trieste, but I would think that we know enough about those materials that the designer had a high degree of confidence that the design could take the pressure (plus a solid safety margin) before bothering to build it.

"We're gonna re-re-re-re-remake Avatar right there (pointing at globe). No, not in the ocean, inside the ocean, in the heaviest, deepest, most brutal part - the MARIANA TREEEEENNCH! We're gonna call the sequal Avatar 2: BLOOOOD OCEAN!"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096754/ [imdb.com] is the kind of movie requiring some real submarine footage. The other one's Smurfahontas in CGI (quite an accomplishment nonetheless - that should be spared the sad sequel fate of Highlander) - so why would anyone risk their life (and/or sub) for what they could so convincingly render in 3D anyway?

frankly, james cameron is a deep sea diving enthusiast who made the mistake of having a career as a successful movie maker

its almost like he chooses his movies just so he can play with deep sea diving equipment. and the whole "making massive amounts of money with extremely successful pop movies" is an afterthought to his real passion in life. bizarre

The previous X Prize challenges have all been in areas with obvious practical benefits. For instance, private space flight will open up a lot of industrial applications. High fuel efficiency cars are clearly of great benefit.

Are there any known expected benefits to a private vehicle that can reach the Challenger Deep, or is any benefit purely speculative? Considering that this will be one of the more dangerous X Prize challenges, I'd hope they have some serious benefits in mind.